Search Website
REB External Review Recommendations Update
On April 2–3, 2025, Western underwent an external review of its human research ethics operations, review processes and administrative supports. Overall, the review report is balanced and constructive. It identifies several important areas for improvement for both the REBs and the Office of Human Research Ethics (OHRE), while also emphasizing the shared responsibility of researchers to submit timely, complete applications and to engage constructively in the ethics review process to ensure it functions as effectively as possible.
The review identified six key thematic areas:
- Board and office structure;
- Recommendation letters;
- Use of synchronous communication;
- Specialization and pre‑review;
- Proportionality in review; and
- Resources and training.
Actions Underway
In response, OHRE, in collaboration with Western Research leadership and the REB Chairs, has established monthly meetings to address the review committee’s recommendations and to guide implementation. Key actions completed or in progress include:
The Non‑Medical REB (NMREB) has a new NMREB chair and has revised its approach to focus recommendation letters on questions or changes required for regulatory, institutional, or ethical compliance. To support fewer required recommendations, we continue to highly encourage broader design discussions occur earlier during project conceptualization rather than after submission. General suggestions or “helpful considerations” have been removed in response to researcher feedback. To continue to promote consistency and ensure researchers know who to contact, the non-medical ethics officers have been reassigned to be primarily responsible for specific facilities.
The Health Sciences REB (HSREB) has similarly shifted away from general suggestions, except where doing so may prevent unnecessary downstream amendments and added workload for both researchers and REBs. The primary focus remains on required recommendations tied to ethical, regulatory or institutional standards.
As highlighted in the external review for our ethics officers, the terminology “officer” in all Western Research job descriptions has been updated to “specialist” as of April 1, 2026.
Western Research has also created a summary framework document for managing harassment of staff based on Western’s established policies and procedures. We have initiated discussions between Western, its affiliated institutions, and our vendor to review current support for REB review management and hospital institutional approvals processes. These discussions include a re-evaluation of existing software workflows to identify opportunities for increased efficiency and alignment.
There continues to be an ethics resolution form that researchers can use to raise concerns about any REB submissions.
Communications with researchers including key messages are being reinforced through emails, newsletters, presentations, website updates and word‑of‑mouth outreach. A strong emphasis is being placed on encouraging early engagement in project planning before REB submission.
Effective January 1, 2026, all clinical trials are required to use a standardized informed consent form based on Clinical Trials Ontario (CTO) or CanReview templates. This change has significantly reduced the volume of consent‑related REB recommendations.
The Director, Research Ethics and Compliance, AVPR and the REB Chairs are reviewing REB membership structure and recognize challenges associated with the current board size. A smaller, more dedicated board could support deeper engagement, greater continuity and more consistent decision‑making. A key consideration is ensuring that REB members have appropriate protected time, recognizing that this work is substantial and cannot be carried out “off the side of the desk.”
The ethics working group is exploring ways to better embed ethics support within faculties to improve application quality at an earlier stage, reduce bottlenecks and limit extensive revisions. As part of this work, the institution is exploring the use of AI‑enabled tools to support REB submissions, including the application form and supporting documents. Automating repetitive tasks and reducing administrative errors will allow REBs to focus more squarely on ethical review rather than administrative corrections, thereby decreasing review time.
Contact Us
If you have any questions or comments about the REB review or the ongoing implementation of its recommendations, please reach out to Erika Basile, Director, Research Ethics & Compliance.